Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[yidarmytom] 07/10/2019 14:09

there's some right old laydeez on this thread
Tom W
Clerkenwell, London EC4

[chimers] 07/10/2019 13:07

I also pointed out that selling the magazine was FRAUD imo.

It is fraud because the contents such as the TIPS are a week old in most cases yes?

You cant put a magazine on sale and on the front cover say something like 5 GREAT TIPS INSIDE...when everyone has already read these articles online days before and acted upon them.

Anyone who does not know they do this online would thereby be buying a tip that has already risen on the back of the same tip that unknownst to them came out 5 days ago.

So selling the magazine as being full of the "latest" tips is a lie and it is FRAUD yes?

[michaelem] 07/10/2019 12:22

I have noticed that Investors Chronicle recommendations usually follow a price jump, following their tips frequently leads to buying at too high a price, with high risk of subsequent loss.

[winsome] 07/10/2019 11:49

Re Investors Chronicle, in my earlier days of investing I used to rely on that rag for pointing me in the direction of potential buys. I also followed ST and speculated a bit on his small cap tips but never made any money. In fact I lost overall by following IC recommendations. My success rate rocketed when I started to rely on my own research. In particular, the shares ST tipped would usually start to spike just before his articles were published and certainly did spike moments after going live. Then it seemed he judged the performance based on the price the morning before he tipped them, misleading investors into thinking they could have achieved that performance if they followed his tips. I could go on. Basically I wouldn't read it now if it were free.

[tomv33] 07/10/2019 08:38

Maybe you should get a buy bot

[wardy333] 07/10/2019 08:33

Sell bots keeping a lid on this again.

[yidarmytom] 06/10/2019 11:48

ONJohn, you referring to your previous ramp OPTI yeah?
Agreed

[gettingrichslow] 06/10/2019 09:12

Dudishes, can you justify your statement? Or are you just spouting nonsense again?

[mad foetus] 06/10/2019 08:27

"The so called manipulation is farce".The evidence shows a prima facie case. Retail punters can't cancel multiple orders within a micro second of placing them. Your statement is utterly without substance.

[onjohn] 06/10/2019 08:12

uninvestible

[dudishes] 06/10/2019 02:58

£16 to £8, tells one a story. An analogy by a scripted Author, does not tie up. We shorted individually, the so called manipulation is farce. One should ask the question:-Why so changes in Management? Who has done a bunk?

My shorts closed, however, not sure £8 is fair value?

[butchdriveshaft] 06/10/2019 02:33

I've been following the Akhmedova (Luna Yacht) case and was unaware that the ex-husband had bought a case against his wife in the US? Could someone link me to some sources? I believe this to be poor reporting by the Times on the recent case developments.

The mainstream media's been quiet on the Akhmedova yacht case since March 2019 when the arrest warrant on the Luna was lifted, although the Luna still remains in Dubai and there appears to be ongoing litigation in Dubai, however I've unable to identify any new developments.

More recently, Akhmedova (and therefore Burford) won a judgement in the Marshall Islands in September, which recognised (in part) the divorce award in English Courts, and would presumably allow enforcement in the Marshall Islands.



This is important as the Luna is a registered vessel of the Marshall Islands. There also appears to be another case in the Marshall Islands where Akhmedova is applying to have the Luna re-registered in her name. It is believed that this would allow her to seize control of the yacht in Dubai regardless of the outcome of the litigation there.

Separately, Akhmedova also won a judgement in the New York Supreme Court on 30 September 2019 recognising the English divorce award. This would allow enforcement of these judgements against any assets the ex-husband might have in the United States.



The ex-husband has said he doesn't have any assets in the USA (referred to in the Times article), but in a separate New York action, Akhmedova successfully applied for discovery into a number of US banks.



Following discovery it appears that the husband does have assets in the US which can be the subject of enforcement. Subpoena's appear to have been issued to these US Banks, but the ex-husband has received permission to file a late motion to quash the subpoenas. This seems inconsistent with his public stance that he doesn't have any assets in the US!

The case remains highly complex, but it does appear like the net is beginning to close in.

[williamcooper104] 06/10/2019 00:56

Funny - before MW no way that would have been covered in the Times

[devalpha] 05/10/2019 22:19

Oh he did. Let me assure you he did.

[bestace] 05/10/2019 11:59

Investors Chronicle is part of the FT, and if you thought the FT's coverage of Burford in recent months has been biased against them, then it seems Burford's management agrees with you.

Burford's lawyers filed the following submission earlier this week in the Hall vs HS3 case, in arguing against the unsealing of court documents in that case (as requested by FT journalist Tabby Kinder):

"Indeed, it appears that Kinder’s own interest in this case has been ginned up by Defendant Harry Sargeant, III (“HS3”) to generate press coverage he can cite in his defense. See ECF No. 354 ¶ 40 (detailing Kinder’s communications with Plaintiffs and related actions by HS3). Kinder’s articles have featured a highly one-sided and inaccurate understanding of the litigation, relying on documents that HS3 has filed – likely supplied by HS3 or those working on his behalf... One of Kinder’s articles reported that Jane Doe 1 had hired HS3’s UK counsel, Covington & Burling LLP, to consider bringing claims against Burford and Hall under “revenge porn” laws... The Court should not condone HS3’s apparent resort to a media campaign against Plaintiffs."

The docket reference cited in that paragraph was filed a couple of weeks ago and sets out in greater detail the background to what Burford (through their lawyers) describe as "false and misleading press coverage":

"HS3 improperly relies on media coverage that he generated. On August 22, 2019, two days after the parties filed their summary judgment motions, the Financial Times (“FT”) published an article about ongoing litigation in the United Kingdom between Wilmer Ruperti and Novoship (UK) Limited (“Novoship”). The article focused on Novoship’s impleading of Hall and another Burford entity more than three months earlier and did not describe any event in that litigation that was less than three months old. The day after the article, one of the FT’s reporters contacted Burford’s communications firm seeking comment for a planned follow-up. On August 29, the reporter told Burford she was preparing a story saying that Doe had hired counsel in the UK to consider bringing claims against Burford and Hall under “revenge porn laws.” (Email from T. Kinder to R. Bailhache, timestamped 16:56). The FT eventually reported that Doe’s counsel in this prospective litigation was Covington & Burling LLP, the same firm that represented HS3 in the UK in connection with the SAC. Later that day the FT reporter asked Burford for comment on two documents that HS3 had filed in connection with his summary judgment motion... (Email from T. Kinder to R. Bailhache, timestamped 12:40:31 p.m.)... The FT published its first follow-up story on September 5... The article noted that Hall had received the USB drive containing HS3’s emails at a restaurant in South Beach, a detail made public for the first time in HS3’s summary judgment filings.. HS3 now cites the two FT articles described above and a handful of other stories, all of which appear to be based on the first FT article. On September 17, the Daily Mail published an article quoting three documents HS3 had filed with his summary judgment motion. "



They are essentially arguing that HS3 has been leaking sealed court documents to the FT and Daily Mail as part of a media campaign to undermine Burford.

And this week it became public that the Daily Mail has also written to the judge asking for the court records in this case to be unsealed, to quote:

"I believe there is a strong public interest in this information being made available.

"Along with colleagues at other publications, I have been reporting closely on the court proceedings involving the above­named parties.

"Already these reports have uncovered matters which deeply affect a wide range of retail investors with exposure to the parties, as well as other members of the public who have come into contact with Burford Capital and its employees."

[tsmith2] 05/10/2019 11:45

remember the "mark to market accounting like Enron" comment by MW.. I do hope on this occasion MW get what they deserve

[tsmith2] 05/10/2019 11:43

I think you rate IC too highly..

[mad foetus] 05/10/2019 11:16

Ironically that piece may help Burford in court. One of their arguments was that PIs tend to use price as an indicator of how to trade and that a weak price will lead to further weakness, so if manipulation can make price slip significantly that will itself create a vicious circle. In effectively saying don't buy BUR because it's price is down the IC are supporting that argument

[djderry] 05/10/2019 11:10

Thanks Devalpha, you're making some salient points.I thought the last article on Burford in Investor's Chronicle prior to this was balanced,but,overall,the commentary has been very disappointing.No real research,grabbing headlines,abdicating responsibility with throwaway remarks and,in one podcast within a day or two of the bear attack,a contributor admitting he 'didn't know' who was right but 'wouldn't be surprised 'if Muddy Waters were.It's outrageous stuff,lacking any serious discipline to the craft of financial journalism,the equivalent of Fox 'News',in print.(It's been established in court that Fox 'News' is not a news channel but an entertainment channel with no responsibility to establish fact or truthful analysis,but I digress.) Surely,the Liberum point by point rebuttal deserves equal prominence when it shows factually and methodically each and every MW point to be simply wrong,mis-calculated or downright misleading,apart from the remark regarding the marital status of two of the officers of the company and the length of time served by some members of the board.The latest piece in IC is odd in many respects ,not least because it seems to point to a depressed share price as a red flag.As I've said so many times,the shareprice tells you almost nothing,apart from what the shares are changing hands for at a particular moment.It says nothing about the quality of the business,the growth,the margins,the deep due diligence,the scale of funding and so on .

[mad foetus] 05/10/2019 11:06

Dev That is a great response. To be clear, the issues around Burford as a business and those around whether there was illegal market manipulation are completely separate. I think the MW accusations about accounting are all mistaken, but even if the MW report was 100% accurate, illegal market manipulation is still illegal. I can see no reason for cancelling a trade within a millionth of a second of placing it. But to do that with Burford shares there must be a high chance it is being done systematically. Be in no doubt, if the truth is allowed to come out faith in the LSE could be destroyed and a large number of institutions could be shown to have been engaged in or overlooking illegal activities for years. But only Tom Hayes was jailed for rigging LIBIR: the city is great at covering up systemic fraud which is why the LSE wants the FCA to investigate. What is surprising is that the IC are on the side of covering up the truth

[bbmsionlypostafter] 05/10/2019 10:33

I'm confident Alex Newman will give that correspondence all due consideration.